Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club can be compelled to obtain a special permit from Kitsap County before operating its shooting range on Seabeck Highway, the Washington State Court of Appeals has ruled.

In an opinion released Tuesday, the appeals court found that Kitsap County’s shooting-range ordinance, approved three years ago, violates neither Washington state law nor the state Constitution, as the gun club had claimed. The county ordinance requires all shooting ranges in unincorporated Kitsap County to obtain a permit to ensure safe operations.

In a separate case involving KRRC, the Court of Appeals on Tuesday directed Pierce County Superior Court to rewrite its injunction imposing various restrictions on the shooting range, such as the type of weapons allowed. In addressing the club’s nonconforming (grandfathered) land-use status, the appeals court said the lower court ruling was “overbroad” in restrictions intended to bring the gun range into compliance with its historical uses.

“The court affirmed the county’s position on the big-picture issues,” said Christy Palmer, deputy prosecutor for Kitsap County. “The court of appeals gave some clear direction to the trial court, and I hope the parties can work together to come up with a revised order that satisfies all the parties.”

The shooting range remains closed to the use of firearms under two court orders, one requiring the club to obtain the required shooting-range permit, the other requiring the club to obtain construction permits and bring the range into compliance with local land-use codes.

Attorneys for the gun club, joined by lawyers from the National Rifle Association, said the county’s shooting-range ordinance violates a state law that “preempts the entire field of firearms regulation” — including city and county ordinances. The law allows for an exception “where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals or property will be jeopardized.”

The appeals court judges ruled that Kitsap County’s ordinance does not regulate firearms, as defined in the state law and court rulings. The state law prohibits local government from restricting “registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge and transportation of firearms or any other element related to firearms.”

“There is no indication,” the appeals court said, “that the Legislature intended to preempt local ordinances requiring shooting facilities to obtain operating permits.”

But even if the state law did apply to shooting facilities, the Kitsap ordinance would fall under the exception for safety, since that was the very intent of the ordinance, according to the court.

The Court of Appeals cited the Pierce County ruling in 2012, which followed weeks of testimony about conditions at KRRC’s range: “More likely that not, bullets have escaped and will escape the club’s shooting areas and possibly will strike persons or property in the future, based on the firearms used at the range, vulnerabilities of neighboring residential properties, allegations of bullet impacts in nearby residential developments, evidence of bullets lodged in trees above the berms, and the opinions of testifying experts.”

Attorneys for the gun club and NRA also claimed that the ordinance violates the U.S. and state constitutions, which protect an individual’s right to bear arms. The club’s attorneys brought up the case “Ezell v. City of Chicago,” in which the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that banning all shooting ranges in Chicago violated the Second Amendment. The court reasoned that “the right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use…”

But in ruling against KRRC, the Court of Appeals said that the Chicago case did not address whether a permit could be required for operating shooting facilities. That case centered around an outright ban on all shooting ranges.

The Kitsap County ordinance “leaves open opportunities for people to acquire and maintain proficiency with firearms — at the club if it obtains an operating license, or at some other licensed shooting facility,” the court said.

The appeals court also rejected the club’s argument that the ordinance interferes with the club’s legal nonconforming use status to keep operating as it has in the past. Nonconforming use is a zoning issue, the court said, and the shooting-range ordinance falls under the county’s general “police powers” and authority to “protect the health, safety and welfare of the community.”

The nonconforming-use issue was a central feature in the second lawsuit, which began when the county sued the club in 2011. Judge Susan Serko in Pierce County Superior Court ruled in favor of the county, saying that the club had violated various land-use laws, created a public nuisance related to noise and safety, and exceeded its historical use of its property, thus losing its grandfathered status as a nonconforming use.

After the case reached the Court of Appeals in 2014, the higher court upheld Serko’s nuisance findings but said she did not have authority to extinguish the club’s nonconforming status. Serko was ordered to craft conditions that would bring the club back into compliance with its historical, nonconforming status.

The resulting order prohibited the club from allowing: commercial uses; military training; explosive devices, including exploding targets; high-caliber weaponry greater than .30 caliber; and practical shooting, including competitions and practice sessions.

This week, the appeals court ruled that those limitations were “overbroad” and not narrowly tailored to the issues. Specifically, the court looked at Serko’s original wording that described how the club had exceeded its nonconforming use and how it might be returned closer to historical conditions. Under the law, nonconforming uses may be “intensified” but not “expanded,” although the difference is not always clear.

For example, Serko’s prohibition against all commercial uses at the KRRC’s range “is not reasonably clear and is not tailored to remedy the club’s impermissible expansion” that occurred when the club allowed for-profit operations, including firearms training for military personnel.

Also, the court pointed out that Serko’s original ruling said the noise problem was exacerbated by “exploding targets and cannons,” but she ultimately prohibited the use of “explosive devices” to reduce noise and bring the club back into conformance with its grandfathered status.

Declaring that finding overbroad as well, the appeals court noted, “In its broadest terms, this would include a bullet, because it is an explosive device.”

The court also addressed the prohibition on weapons over .30 caliber, pointing out that Serko’s original findings related mostly to fully automatic and semiautomatic weapons.

“Although the weapon’s caliber may factor into the trial court’s determination … language enjoining the use of high-caliber weaponry is overbroad,” the court said. “The permanent injunction at issue appears to restrict all weapons that are greater than .30 caliber, such as pistols and shotguns.”

Finally, the court addressed the issue of “practical shooting” by saying that the judge must make clear exactly what activities are prohibited. The term normally applies to shooting at targets in different directions, but Serko’s original findings only addressed “regularly scheduled” practices and competitions, the court said.

Both opinions were signed by all three members of the Court of Appeals panel, namely Chief Judge Thomas Bjorgen and judges Lisa Worswick and Bradley Maxa.

On Dec. 7, KRRC and county attorneys will be in the Court of Appeals again to argue whether Judge Serko’s contempt-of-court ruling should be upheld.

The club was found to be in contempt after club officials missed deadlines to apply for land-use permits that would justify clearing, grading and other work done before 2011 without permits.